iBIliBiiii&WtaiKlMt! WsM  N't  * 

|j^|||f|P||!|l!l!l|l!l||!il|g 


wmm 


m 


'  \ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

Presented   by  VCO-  .  IrfTS.Vi^^C^.X 

Divtston  .......Trrrrr.. >.««*» 

Section       <?S     f     ^^    1 

K 


A  REVIEW, 


By  thos.  mcdougall, 


OF 


CERTAIN    STATEMENTS 

IN   A   BOOK,   ENTITLED: 

"the  trial  of  dr.  briggs  before  the  general 

assembly;  a  calm  review  of  the  case 

by  a  stranger,  who  attended 

all  the  sessions  of  the 

COURT." 


CINCINNATI,  O.: 
Elm  Street  Printing  Co.,  176  and  178  Elm  St. 

1894. 


A   REVIEW, 

By  thos.  mcdougall, 

OF 

CERTAIN    STATEMENTS 

IN  A  BOOK,  ENTITLED: 

"THE  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS  BEFORE  THE  GENERAL 

assembly;   A  CALM  REVIEW  OF  THE  CASE 

BY  A   STRANGER,  WHO  ATTENDED 

ALL  THE  SESSIONS  OF  THE 

COURT." 


tINtlNNATI,  O.: 

Elui  Street  Friiiting  Co.,  Nos.  176  and  ITS  Elm  St. 

1894. 


\ 


/ 


A    REVIEW, 
By  Thos.   McDougall,  of  Certain   Statements 

In  a  Book,  Entitled: 

"The  Trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  before  the  General  Assembly;   a  Calm 

Review  of  the  Case  by  a  Stranger,  who  Attended 

All  the  Sessions  of  the  Court." 


^'R.  J.  L' 

Dear  Sir : — You  have  written  and  published  a  book  with  the  above  title. 
The  intensely  impersonal  character,  and  the  eminently  fair  and  impartial  atti- 
tude claimed,  as  assumed  by  you,  are  evidenced  by  the  following  quotations  : 

"This  only  need  be  added  :  Neither  the  Rev.  Dr.  Briggs,  nor  any  other 
minister  or  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  has  had 
any  knowledge  of  the  writing  of  this  review.  The  writer  has  assumed  the  sole 
responsibility  for  the  writing  of  it,  and  for  every  sentiment  it  contains,  and  has 
withheld  his  name  that  the  views  presented  may  be  judged  according  to  their 
merits,  apart  from  the  influence  of  any  name  whether  obscure  or  the  reverse." 
(Preface,  last  par.) 

"Born  of  Scottish  Presbyterian  parents,  early  instructed  in  the  Bible  and 
the  Westminster  'Shorter  Cattchism'  after  the  old-time  Scottish  fashion;  spe- 
cially instructed  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  by  a  thoroughly 
evangelical  and  orthodox  Scotch  minister;  subsequently  instructed  in  theology 
by  the  late  venerable  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  and  his  associates  during  a  three- 
years'  course  at  Princeton  Theological  Seminary ;  for  more  than  twenty  years  a 
city  pastor,  ministering  to  people  of  undoubted  intelligence  and  orthodoxy  ; 
for  the  past  quarter  of  a  century  a  reader  of  that  witness  for  orthodoxy  The 
Presbyterian, — I  found  myself  on  the  18th  of  May  last,  in  the  ordering  of 
Providence,  and  without  any  pre-arrangeraent  of  mine,  a  visitor  at  the  Wash- 
ington Assembly.     P.  33. 

This,  and  succeeding  generations  who  may  become  interested  in  this  book 
of  yours,  will  not  have  as  much  difficulty  in  determining  who  you  are,  as  has 
been  encountered  in  ascertaining  who  was  the  author  of  the  letters  of  Junius. 
If  you  really  desired  your  views  to  be  judged  on  tlieir  merits  and  so  withheld 


your  name,  why  did  you  give  such  a  modest  recital  of  your  experience,  career 
and  education  ? 

On  page  38,  you  say  : 

"  Having  had  an  opportunity  since  the  close  of  the  Assembly  of  review- 
ing at  leisure  the  official  report  of  the  Assembly,  with  other  necessary  docu- 
ments, I  have  found  that  the  impressions  formed  during  the  trial  were  not  only 
correct,  but  that  they  have  been  much  deepened  by  a  careful  perusal  of  all  the 
arguments  and  evidence  presented  before  the  Court." 

In  view  of  this  statement  that  you  have  examined  the  official  report  of  the 
Assembly  with  other  necessary  documents,  thus  intending  to  create  the  im- 
pression that  the  statements  made  in  subsequent  pages  of  the  book,  so  far 
as  they  refer  to  matters  of  evidence  and  fact,  are  strictly  accurate,  and  made 
on  full  and  calm  reflection,  your  attention  is  called  to  the  following,  on  pp. 
124-5 : 

"None  of  all  the  charges  stirred  individual  commissioners  as  did  these 
two.  The  only  case,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  can  remember,  in  which  any 
member  of  the  court  needed  to  be  called  to  order  during  the  trial,  Avas  in  con- 
nection with  these  charges.  This  was  in  the  case  of  a  lay  commissioner  who 
took  an  active  part  in  all  the  proceedings,  and  whose  opinions  and  utterances 
seemed  to  have  weight  with  many  in  the  court.  In  expressing  his  views  on 
these  charges,  he  was  deeply  stirred,  and  with  earnest  gesture  and  elevated 
voice  began  to  relate  an  imaginary  colloquy  between  Dr.  Briggs  and  God,  in 
which  he  represented  'God  Almighty'  as  declaring  to  Dr.  Briggs  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch,  and  Dr.  Briggs  as  replying  that  Moses  did  not.  But  at 
this  point  he  was  called  to  order  in  the  most  quiet  and  considerate  way  by  a 
venerable  father  in  the  Assembly — the  Rev.  Dr.  Storrs." 

Should  you  write  another  book,  or  desire  to  communicate  with  the  writer, 
or  treat  yourself  to  another  luxury  by  way  of  a  calm  review,  he  would  be 
pleased  to  have  you  state  from  what  official  report,  or  other  source,  you  ob- 
tained the  information  set  forth  in  the  paragrapli  just  quoted.  Where  do  you 
find  that  the  writer  ''oieeded  to  be  called  to  order  during  the  trial  in  connection 
with  these  charges  f  Where  do  you  find  that  the  writer  made  any  reference  in 
connectif)n  with  these  charges,  or  at  any  time  during  the  trial  to  Moses  and  the 


Pentateuch  f  Be  kind  enough  to  furnish  us  the  source  of  your  information  in 
the  paragraph  above  quoted.  If  the  other  statements  in  your  book  are  as  far 
from  what  actually  occurred  as  is  the  foregoing,  then  little  or  no  reliance 
can  be  placed  on  them. 

The  official  report  of  the  three- minute  speeches  in  the  trial  of  the  case  of 
Dr.  Briggs  on  its  merits,  published  by  the  Washington  Post,  makes  no  refer- 
ence whatever  to  what  the  writer  said.  If  you  will  examine  the  New  York 
Tribune  Monthly  for  May,  1893,  entitled,  "The  Trial  of  Dr.  Briggs,"  you 
will  find  on  page  100  the  following  : 

Thos.  McDougall  : 

"If  it  be  in  order  in  this  Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  in  this  court, 
permit  me  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  character  of  Almighty  God  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  omniscience,  veracity  and  absolute  truthfulness.  Al- 
mighty God  said  that  Isaiah  said  thus  and  so ;  Dr.  Briggs  says  to  Almighty 
God,  'Isaiah  did  not  say  so.'  Which  will  you  believe?  This  is  not  a  matter 
of  science,  not  a  matter  of  history  ;  but  the  Almighty  God,  the  Eternal 
Jehovah,  said  in  his  written  Word,  in  Luke,  in  John,  in  Romans,  that  Isaiah 
said  thus  and  so  ;  Dr.  Briggs  says,  'Almighty  God,  Isaiah  never  said  it ;  he 
never  wrote  it ;  he  was  not  living  when  it  was  written.'  This  is  not  a  formal 
or  technical  question,  it  is  a  direct  issue  as  to  the  veracity  of  the  Eternal  God." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  H.  M.  Siorrs. — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  and  I  wish  it  taken 
down.  This  man  has  been  before  us;  is  the  charge  now  made  against  him 
true?  Is  it  veracious?  Has  Dr.  Briggs  said  any  such  thing?  That  is  the 
question,  sir.  My  point  of  order  is  that  any  man  here  has  a  right  to  the 
defence  of  his  personal  character  against  unwarranted  statements.  This  is  a 
charge  of  blasphemy  upon  Dr.  Briggs. 

Mr.  McDougall. — Let  us  see.  I  will  answer  you,  Mr.  Storrs.  This  man 
has  said  here  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  the  book  that  bears  his  name. 

Dr.  Storrs. — Mr.  Moderator — 

Mr.  McDougall. — And  it  is  that  matter  I  am  going  to  discuss. 

Dr.  Storrs. — Mr.  Moderator,  before  a  man  can  say  anything  of  this  sort, 
he  must  locate  the  particular  language  or  statement ;  otherwise,  it  is  a  general 
statement,  and  becomes  an  accusation  of  blasphemy  for  which  there  is  no 
pardon. 

Several  members  undertook  to  speak. 

The  Moderator. — Hold  on,  I  will  keep  the  order. 

A  Member. — I  want  to  know,  Mr.  Moderator,  v/hether  you  are  presiding 
officer  or  not. 


The  Moderator. — I  am  trying  to  be  if  you  will  allow  me.  Now  let  Mr» 
McDougall  show  these  quotations  that  justify  his  remarks.  Proceed,  Mr» 
McDougall. 

A  Member. — I  make  this  point :  Is  this  quotation  in  the  Inaugural 
Address  ? 

Mr.  McDougall. — It  is  in  the  printed  document  that  has  been  presented 
here. 

Several  members  attempted  to  interrupt. 

Mr.  McDougall. — Brethren,  if  you  will  be  quiet  I  will  tell  you  where  it  is. 
It  is  in  the  charges  and  specifications— the  statement  that  Isaiah  did  not  write 
half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name ;  and  it  is  in  the  defence  of  Dr.  Briggs — 
the  statement  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  the  latter  part  of  that  book.  If  that  is 
not  Dr.  Briggs'  statement,  I  will  withdraw  my  charge. 

Two  things  are  clear  from  this  report :  First,  that  the  moderator  decided 
that  I tvas  in  order,  and  did  not  decide  that  I  "needed  to  be  called  to  order;" 
Second,  that  I  said  nothing  on  the  subject  of  Moses  and  tJie  Pentateuch,  but 
confined  my  statements  solely  to  the  sixth  or  what  is  called  the  "Isaiah 
charge." 

As  to  the  quiet  and  considerate  way  in  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Storrs  raised 
the  point  of  order,  as  these  terms  are  comparative,  and  as  what  is  quiet  and 
considerate  to  one  man  may  be  the  opposite  to  another,  depending  altogether 
upon  whose  side  the  point  is  made,  I  suggest  that  in  the  interest  of  truth  and 
correctness  of  statement,  it  is  better  to  omit  such  adjectives  altogether. 

On  page  125,  speaking  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  (should  be  the  fifth  and 
sixth)  charges,  you  say  : 

"  It  is  possible  that  Dr.  Briggs  may  not  be  correct  in  all  his  conclusions 
regarding  the  authorship  of  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  parts  of  the  Book  of 
Isaiah.  He  may  have  made  mistakes,  such  as  all  students  are  liable  at  times 
to  make,  or  such  as  any  minister  may  sometimes  make  in  his  interpretation  of 
the  text  from  which  he  preaches ;  but  that  he  has  fallen  into  any  vital  erro(r, 
or  that  he  has  cast  any  slight  upon  any  part  of  the  inspired  Word,  either  in 
the  course  of  his  study  or  in  the  conclusions  he  has  reached,  is  the  reverse  of 
what  has  been  proved  by  all  the  records  of  the  case."     (Italics  ours).^ 

The  judgment  of  the  General  Assembly,  quoted  in  your  book  on  pp.  166— 
168,  finds  that  the  teachings  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 


teuch  and  parts  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  "ivere  vital  error):  contrary  to  the  essential 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  which  said  erroneous  teachings  strike  at  the  vitals  of 
religion."  Yet,  in  the  light  of  that  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  our 
church,  you  calmly  say  "  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  not  fallen  into  any  vital  error,  or 
cast  any  slight  upon  any  part  of  the  inspired  Word,"  and  that  your  conclusion 
is  proved  by  all  of  the  records  in  the  case. 

The  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  a  part  of  the  record,  and  to  a  legal 
mind  the  most  important  part.  You  join  issue  with  that  solemn  judgment, 
and  say  that  "the  views  and  teachings  of  Dr.  Briggs  touching  the  authorship  of 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  parts  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  do  not  cast  any 
slight  upon  any  pait  of  the  inspired  Word  are  not  vital  errors,  and  that  this 
is  proved  by  all  the  records  of  the  case."  What  your  meaning  of  the  records 
of  the  case  is,  I  fail  to  understand,  if  it  does  not  include  the  judgment.  Per- 
mit nie  to  call  your  attention  to  what  is  called  the  Isaiah  charge,  and  which  to 
the  ordinary  mind  is  a  conclusive  (Jemonstration  that  the  teachings  of  Dr. 
Briggs  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  or  with  the  faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  or  of  Evangelical  Christendom. 

THE   ISAIAH    CHARGE. 

Charge  six  was  as  follows  : 

"The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  charges  the 
Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. ,  being  a  minister  of  the  said  Church,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author 
of  half  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  which  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  standards  of  the  said 
Church,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God  by  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture is  the  Scripture  itself." 

The  specification  was  as  follows  : 

"In  an  inaugural  address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  Jan. 
20,  1891,  on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of 
Biblical  Theology,  which  address  has  been  published  and  extensively  circulated 


with  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  (Jharles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
and  ha-5  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a  preface  and  an 
ap|iendix,  there  occurs  the  following  sentence  : 

Page  33,  lines  14-15  : 

"  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name." 

In  his  defence  before  the  New  York  Presbytery,  p.  181,  Dr.  Briggs 
specifies  the  half  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  which  he  claims  was  not  written  by 
Isaiah,  as  follows  : 

"The  great  prophecy  in  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  bears  no  title.  It 
is  anonymous.  There  is  nothing  about  it,  therefore,  to  indicate  that  its  editor 
or  original  author  designed  that  it  should  be  regarded  as  b}'^  Isaiah." 

And  on  page  147  : 

"The  two  passages  from  the  earlier  collection  are  not  in  question,  because 
I  do  not  deny  that  Isaiah  wrote  them  ;  but  only  those  from  Chapters  40-66.  If 
these  New  Testament  writers  testify  that  Isaiah  wrote  these  passages,  then  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament  is  against  the  opinion  that  I  have  expressed, 
that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name  ;  but  these 
writers  testify  no  such  thing." 

And  on  page  150  : 

"Thus  of  the  sixty-six  chapters,  we  may  attribute  to  Isaiah  not  more 
than  twenty-seven  chapters.  Thirty-nine  chapters,  making  the  larger  half  of 
the  book,  were  not  written  by  him,  as  all  the  critics  acknowledge.  My  thesis 
is  therefore  proven,  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his 
name." 

To  sustain  these  charges  the  prosecution  cited  certain  passages  from  the 
New  Testament,  which  are  as  follows  : 

Matt.  4;  14,  15. —14,  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  15,  The  land  of  Zabulon,  and  the  land  of  Neph- 
thalini,  by  the  way  of  the  sea,  beyond  Jordan,  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles. 

Matt.  12;  17,  18.— 17,  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Esaias  tlie  prophet,  saying,    18,  Behold  my  servant  whom  I  have  chosen  ;  my 


beloved,  in  whom  my  soul  is  well  pleased  :  I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him,  and 
he  shall  shew  judgment  to  the  Gentiles. 

Luke  3  ;  4  — As  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  words  of  Esaias  the 
prophet,  saying.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight. 

Acts  28  ;  25,  26. — 25,  And  when  they  agreed  not  among  themselves  they 
departed  after  that  Paul  had  spoken  one  word.  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  26,  Saying,  Go  unto  this  people,  and  say. 
Hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  understand  ;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and 
not  perceive, 

John  12;  38,  41. — 38,  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  prophet  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report?  and  to  whom 
hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed?  41,  These  things  .said  Esaias,  when 
he  saw  his  gliry,  and  spake  of  him. 

Rom.  10;  16,  20.  — 16,  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  Gospel.  For 
Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report?  20,  But  Esaias  is  very 
bold,  and  saith,  I  was  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not  ;  I  was  made  mani  est 
unto  them  that  asked  not  after  me 

\VH.\T   THE    CHARGE   IS. 

These  citations  from  the  New  Testament  are  positive,  explicit  declarations 
that  the  words  quoted  were  spoken  and  written  by  Isaiah,  and  by  no  one  else. 
Dr.  Briggs  contended  that  theee  words  did  not  mean  any  more  than  "  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  says,"  "spoken  through  the  Book  of  Isaiah,"  "the  word  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  "  By  what  rule  of  construction  intelligible  to  a  sound  mind,  the 
statement  that  "  Isaiah  said"  is  synonymous  with  "The  Book  of  Isaiah  said" 
when  the  person  so  claiming,  denies  that  Isaiah,  in  fact,  said  or  was  the  author 
of  what  bears  his  name,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain.  Here  in  the  Bible,  which 
Dr.  Briggs  declared  to  l)e  the  Word  of  God,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  are  to  be  found  explicit,  unambiguous,  unequivocal  statements  that 
Isaiah  said  certain  words,  and  yet  Dr.  Briggs  says,  Isaiah  nev«r  did  say  these 
words,  he  never  spoke  them.  He  was  not  in  existence  when  these  words  were 
written,  and  was  not  in  fact  their  author. 

This  raises  a  direct  issue  of  fact  betwe  n  the  authors  of  these  statements 
and  Dr.  Briggs.  If  the  statements  were  inspired  by  God  and  are  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  then  the  issue  of  veracity  is  between  God  and  Dr.  Briggs.  It 
is  not  contended   by  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  school   that  the  translation  of  these 


10 


verses  is  imperfect  and  errant.  It  is  not  contended  that  they  are  not  a  part  of 
the  original  Bible.  It  is  only  confidently  asserted  that  these  statements,  as 
they  appear  in  the  Word  of  God,  are  not  true,  and  that  Isaiah  never  wrote  the 
words  which  are  thus  attributed  to  him. 

THE   APOSTLE   PAUL   VS.   DR.   BRIGG8. 

If  the  statements  made  in  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  Acts  and  Romans  are 
the  statements  of  uninspired  men,  and  not  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  then  the 
question  arises  whether  these  writers  had  less  means  of  knowledge  at  their  com- 
mand than  Dr.  Briggs.  Whether,  for  instance,  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  writer 
of  Romans,  was  less  able  to  determine  the  authorship  of  Isaiah  than  Dr.  Briggs. 
Paul  lived  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago.  He  therefore  lived  that  much 
nearer  the  time  of  the  existence  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  He  was 
a  Jew,  learned  in  all  the  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  He  was  cer- 
tainly the  peer  in  intellect  and  scholarship  of  any  mind  of  modern  times. 

As  Locke,  in  his  essay  on  the  "Understanding  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles," 
speaking  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  well  says  : 

"He  was,  as  it  is  visible,  a  man  of  quick  thought  and  warm  temper, 
mighty,  well  versed  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  and  full  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  New." 

Again  he  says 

"This  was  enough  to  persuade  me  that  he  was  not  a  man  of  loose  and 
shattered  parts,  incapable  to  argue,  and  unfit  to  convince  those  he  had  to  deal 
with.  God  knows  how  to  choose  fit  instruments  for  the  business  he  employs 
them  in.  A  large  stock  of  Jewish  learning  he  had  taken  in  at  the  feet  of 
GaJmaliel ;  and  for  his  information  in  Christian  knowledge,  and  the  mysteries 
and  depths  of  the  dispensation  of  grace  by  Jesus  Clnist,  God  himself  had  con- 
descended to  be  his  instructor  and  teacher.         ...... 

"This  being  only  the  safe  guide  (under  the  S  irit  of  God  that  dictated 
these  sacred  writings,  etc.         .         .  .  -  .         . 

"For,  granting  that  he  was  full  stored  with  the  knowledge  of  the  things 
he  treated  of,  for  he  had  light  from  heaven,  it  was  God  himself  furnished  him, 
and  he  could  not  want;  allowing  also  that  he  had  ability  to  make  use  of  the 
knowledge  givei  for  the  end  for  which  it  was  given  him,  etc. 

"He  fully  possessed  the  entire  revelation  ho  had  receivid  from  God,  had 


11 


thoroughly  digested  it,  all  the  parts  were  formed  together  in  his  mind,  into  one 
well  contracted,  harmonious  body,  etc." 

The  Apostle's  statements  therefore  in  Romans  10;  16  20,"For  Esaias  saith," 
and  "Esaias  is  very  bold  and  saith,"  are  more  authoritative  than  those  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  even  on  the  ground  of  uninspired  scholarship,  for  wiih  at  least  equal 
intellectual  equipment  and  scholarship  he  lived  two  thousautl  years  nearer  the 
time  when  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was  written.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Dr.  Briggs 
does  not  dispute  the  authorship  of  the  latter  half  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  on  the 
basis  of  any  te.«timony  which  he  can  show  wAs  not  in  the  possession  of  or  availa- 
ble to  the  Apostle  Paul  The  arguments  of  Dr.  Briggs  from  style,  biblical 
theology,  historical  situation,  and  the  New  Testament,  were  all  equally  availa- 
ble to  the  apostle.  'Therefore,  it  would  seem  to  any  ordinary  mind,  that  as 
between  the  Apostle  Paul,  uninspired,  and  Dr.  Briggs,  the  opinion  of  the 
former  should  be  taken  in  preference  to  that  of  the  latter,  especially  as  Dr. 
Briggs  himself,  in  1876,  when  he  translated  the  commentary  on  the  Book  of 
Ezra,  entertained  the  same  opinion,  and  has  only  hitely  changed  his  mind. 

CLAIMS   OF   MODERN    SCHOLARSHIP. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  so-called  modern  scholarship  can  lay  any  just  claim 
to  new  or  additional  evidence  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  latter  part  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah,  or  superior  intellectual  ability  in  applying  the  rules  of  evidence  on 
the  question  of  authorshij),  to  that  of  former  generations.  The  Apostle  Paul, 
and  I  he  scholars  of  his  generation,  so  far  as  the  authorship  of  the  latter  half  of 
the  Book  of  Isarah  is  concerned,  were  as  competent  to  determine  that  author- 
ship on  the  evidence  then  ejcisting,  as  any  of  our  modern  scholars.  The 
progress  of  the  ages  has  added  no  new  evidence  to  the  fact  of  authorship,  and 
certainly  has  not  added  anyihing  to  the  intellectual  gifts  of  the  race.  Certain 
claims  of  so-called  modern  scholarship  and  progriss  might  be  called,  to  some 
extent,  modern  fads.  Some  of  its  claims  are  so  saturated  with  egotism,  and  so 
blinded  with  unconscious  self  righteousness  as  to  disqualify  the  claimants  and 
victims  from  using  aright  the  information  they  possess,  and  from  making  that 
careful  and  judicial  analysis  of  facts  essential  to  correct  conclusions  worthy  of 
true  scholarship.  Surely  in  the  matter  of  the  scholarship  affecting  the  Jewish 
scriptures  and  the  authorship  thereof,  the  Apostle  l*au!,  uninspired,  was  the 


12 


superior  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and  as  between  him  and  Dr.  Briggs,  on  the  question  of 
who  wrote  certain  words  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  would  naturally  believe 
Paul,  even  when  uninspired,  in  preference  to  Dr.  Briggs. 

Did  the  apostle  believe  Isaiah  wrote  and  spake  the  words  as  stated  by  him 
in  Romans  10  ;  16-20?  Did  he  know  he  did  not  speak  them  when  he  said  be 
did?  If  the  apostle  knew  that  Isaiah  was  not  the  author  of  and  never  spake  the 
words,  when  he  said  he  did,  he  deliberately  told  what  was  untrue.  Dr.  Briggs 
says,  "  Defence,"  p.  147: 

"If  these  New  Testament  writers  testify  that  Isaiah  wrote  these  passages, 
then  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament  is  against  the  opinion  I  have 
expressed  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  etc." 

Does  not  this  make  a  square  issue?  If  Dr.  Briggs  is  right  that  Isaiah  did 
not  write  or  speak  these  passages,  and  he  affirms  Isaiah  did  not,  and  if  the  New 
Testament  writers  affirm  he  did,  then  the  latter  told  what  was  not  true,  either 
ignorantly  or  wilfully. 

god's  truthfulness  involved. 

On  the  other  hand,  believing  as  we  do  and  as  the  great  majority  of  Christ- 
endom does,  that  the  passages  cited  from  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  Acts  and 
Romans  were  inspired,  then  the  question  is  one  involving  the  truthfulness  of 
the  author  of  the  inspired  word. 

You  will  certainly  admit  that  God  knew  who  wrote  the  passages  in  ques- 
tion. God  being  omniscient,  knowing  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  know- 
ing who  wrote  the  disputed  passages,  the  issue  is  between  God  and  Dr.  Briggs. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  as  we  have  already  said,  that  these  statements 
thus  inspired  by  God  are  parts  of  the  book  which  Dr.  Briggs,  by  his  ordination 
vow,  in  order  to  obtain  admission  into  the  Presbyterian  ministry,  declared  to  be 
the  Word  of  God.  There  was  no  reservation  of  these  passages  as  being  unin- 
spired, and  not  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God  made  by  Dr.  Briggs  when  he  took 
the  ordination  vow.  By  the  term^  of  that  vow,  he  is  precluded  and  estopped 
from  saying  that  these  passages  are  not  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  that 
their  authors  in  writing  them  were  not  inspired. 

If  it  be  true  that  Isaiah  never  said  these  words,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
never  spake  these  words  by  Isaiah  the  prophet,  then  God  must  be  the  author 


18 


of  untruth,  and  that  not  in  a  matter  of  opinion,  or  speculation,  but  in  a  direct, 
positive,  unequivocal  statement  of  fact.  Will  any  man  dare  to  assert  that  the 
knowledge  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  to  who  wrote  these  words,  Isaiah  or  a  "Great 
Unknown,"  is  superior  to  the  knowledge  of  the  omniscient  God? 

"The  Book  of  Isaiah  said"  could  not  mean  "Isaiah  said"  if  the  portion 
of  the  book  bearing  his  name  was  not  in  fact  written  by  him,  and  he  was  not 
believed  to  be  its  author.  If  in  fact  the  whole  of  the  book  bearing  the  name 
of  Isaiah  was  written  by  Isaiah,  it  might  well  be  said  that  the  words  "Book  of 
Isaiah  says"  and  "Isaiah  says"  are  equivalent.  But  to  claim  that  "Isaiah 
said"  and  "The  Book  of  Isaiah  said"  mean  the  same  thing,  when  the  per.«on 
using  the  first  phrase  does  not  believe  that  the  passages  cited,  or  the  portions 
of  the  book  containing  the  passages  cited,  were  really  written  by  Isaiah,  is  a 
contradiction  on  a  question  of  fact,  and  involves  the  veracity  or  lack  of  consci- 
ence or  sense  of  the  person  making  the  statement. 

EXPLANATIONS    AND    THEORIES. 

The  attempted  explanations  and  theories  of  Dr.  Briggs  leveal  a  curious 
state  of  mind.  Here  is  one  claiming  to  be  a  scholar  whose  function  it  is  to 
state  facts  correctly,  and  make  his  statements  clear,  plain  and  easily  under- 
stood, asserting  that  "The  Book  of  Isaiah  says"  is  equivalent  to  the  statement 
"  Isaiah  says,"  while  denying  that  the  passages  and  the  portions  of  the  book  in 
which  the  passages  in  question  are  found,  were  really  written  by  Isaiah.  And 
further,  that  the  God-given,  God  inspired  declarations  of  Matthew,  Luke, 
John  and  Paul:  "Spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,"  "The  ivords  of  Esaias  the 
prophet,"  "  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  imto  our  fathers, 
saying,"  "  The  saying  of  Esaias  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake," 
'.'  These  things  said  Esaias,"  "  For  Esaias  saith,"  "  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and 
saith,"  mean  nothing  more  than  that  Esaias  never  said  any  such  things  ;  the 
Holy  Ghost  never  did  speak  the  words  cited  unto  the  fathers  by  Esaias,  but 
only  that  these  statements  are  to  be  found  in  a  book  bearing  by  tradition 
Isaiah's  name,  the  latter  part  of  which,  including  these  passages,  Isaiah  did 
nut  write,  and  was  not  living  when  the  words  thus  attributed  to  him  were 
spoken. 

Is  it  within  the  power  of  a  sane  mind  to  imagine  a  course  of  reasoning, 


14 


and  invent  a  line  of  argument  and  teaching  more  completely  d  structive  of  the 
distinctions  between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  which  more  violently  shock  the 
sense  of  common  honesty  than  this,  thereby  rendering  faith  in  the  Bible 
and  its  author  impossible? 

Did  God  know  when  he  inspired  the  writers  to  make  the  statements  that 
Isaiah  did  say,  did  speak  these  words,  that  Isaiah  did  not  speak  any  such 
words  ?  Then  God  is  the  author  of  untruth.  Were  these  statements  by  the 
sacred  writes  uninspired?  Then  the  statements  made  by  them  were  either  made 
in  ignorance,  or  were  wilfully  false.  Where  do  we  find  that  these  statements 
were  the  uninspired  declarations  of  Matthew,  Luke,  John  and  Paul?  On  what 
evidence  is  pr,  Briggs  able  to  convict  these  writers  of  ignorance  or  falsehood? 
If  he  has  succeeded  in  convicting  them  of  either  ignorance  or  falsehood,  of 
what  value  are  their  other  writings?  What  faith  can  be  placed  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  penned  by  them? 

We  stand  amazed  at  the  awful  presumption  involved  in  the  cool  assertion 
that  Isaiah  never  spake  the  words  thus  attributed  to  him  in  Matthew,  Luke, 
John,  Acts  and  The  Romans.  We  are  appalled  at  the  audacity  of  men  who 
thus  challenge  the  omniscience  and  veracity  of  the  Eternal  God. 

As  for  you,  posing  with  your  "Calm  Review,"  let  me  suggest  that  you 
make  another  review,  and  reverse  your  conclusions  when  you  say  : 

"It  is  possible  tliat  Dr.  Briggs  may  not  be  correct  in  all  his  conclusions 
regarding  the  authorship  of  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  parts  of  the  Book  of 
Isaiah.  He  may  have  made  mistakes,  such  as  all  students  are  liable  at  times  to 
make,  or  such  as  any  minister  may  sometimes  make  in  his  interpretation  of  the 
text  from  which  he  preaches  ;  but  that  he  has  fallen  into  any  vital  error,  or  that 
he  has  cast  any  slight  upon  any  part  of  the  inspired  word,  either  in  the  course 
of  his  study,  or  in  the  conclusions  he  has  reached,  is  the  reverse  of  what  has 
been  proved  by  all  the  records  of  the  case." 

Tlie  condition  of  mind  involved  in  a  direct  challenge  of  the  veracity  of 
God  by  one  who  has  subscribed  to  the  ordination  vow  of  the  Presbyterian  min- 
istry, is  difficult  to  understand.  God  is  absolute  truth.  Nothing  that  is  his 
can,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  a  mis-statement  of  fact.  No  consideration  of 
any  kind  would  justify  God,  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Eternal  Truth,  in  stating 
certain  portions  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  to  have  been  written  by  Isaiah,  when  in 


15 


fact  they  were  not  so  written ;  or  even  countenancing,  without  correction  or 
protest,  in  his  word,  statements  that  are  untrue,  with  reference  to  these 
portions. 

What  kind  of  a  conception  of  God  has  a  mind  that  assumes  that  Christ 
would  do  this  for  any  reason,  and  yet  claim  that  he  can  remain  in  the  Church 
as  a  minister  loyal  to  his  ordination  vow,  while  declaring  that  Christ  is  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  sinless  and  inerrant. 

A   CONCEPTION   OF   GOD. 

Apart  altogether  from  the  ordination  vow  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and  his  explicit 
dealaration  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  these  passages  form 
a  part  of  that  Word,  would  any  man  of  sound  mind  say  that  what  you  call  the 
mistakes  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  conclusions  touching  the  authorship  of  parts  of 
the  Book  of  Isaiah,  are  not  vital  errors,  and  do  not  cast  any  slight  upon  any 
part  (if  the  inspired  Word?  It  would  be  interesting  to  have  your  conception 
of  God,  and  what  would  constitute  a  slight  upon  his  Word.  The  conception 
of  God  as  revealed  to  us  in  his  Word,  and  declared  in  the  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  errancy,  mis- 
take or  falsity  of  statement,  or  a  lack  of  knowledge  e-sential  to  a  correct  state- 
ment of  fact. 

Omniscient,  knowing  all  things,  infinite  in  truth,  incapable  of  error, 
falsity  or  mistake,  how  can  it  be  said  that  such  a  God  inspired  a  creature  to 
write  for  him,  as  a  part  of  his  Word,  the  statement  that  Isaiah  said  thus  and 
so,  when  in  fact,  Isaiah  never  did  say  or  write  such  words.  Some  of  us  might 
be  panloned  for  saying  that  the  conception  of  God  involved  in  the  teachings  of 
Dr.  Briggs  touching  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  are  such  as  to  render  God  un- 
worthy of  the  worship  and  confidence  of  the  race.  Why  should  any  human 
soul  be  asked  to  risk  its  eternal  destiny  on  tiie  word  of  a  God  who  either  did 
not  know  what  he  was  saying  when  he  inspired  the  statements  that  Isaiah  said 
thus  and  so,  or  else  deliberately  mis-stated  the  facts. 

THE   ISSUE   DIRECT    AND    CLEARLY    DEFINED. 

There  is  no  room  in  this  Isaiah  charge  for  speculation  or  different  con- 
structions   of   language.     The   passages  cited   in    the    specifications    contain 


16 


affirmative,  unequivocal  declarations  that  a  certain  man  wrote  or  spoke  certain 
words,  as  they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  we  have  said,  no  question 
is  raised  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  translation  of  these  words;  it  is  not  claimed 
that  they  were  not  a  part  of  the  original  manuscript.  The  Word  of  God  no- 
where indicates  that  these  statements  are  other  than  a  part  of  it,  and  a  necessary 
part  of  it.  The  ordination  vow  of  Dr.  Briggs  covered  the  passages  cited  to 
sustain  the  charge,  and  yet  we  are  told  by  one  who  assumes  an  air  of  great 
impartiality,  superior  intelligence,  and  calmness  of  review,  that  while  Dr. 
Briggs  may  not  be  correct  in  all  his  conclusions  regarding  the  authorship  of 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  none  of  his  mistakes  constitute  vital  error,  or  cast 
any  slight  upon  any  part  of  the  inspired  Word. 

Can  this  mind,  so  evenly  balanced,  so  colorless  in  its  conceptions  as  to  be 
able  to  write  what  it  calls  a  calm  review,  tell  us  what  is  vital  error,  if  teaching 
that  denies  God's  omniscience  and  veracity  is  not  such?  Or  how  a  slight  can 
be  cast  upon  the  Word  of  God,  if  not  by  denying  the  truth  of  certain  explicit 
statements  contained  therein  ? 

It  may  be  freely  conceded  that  in  the  absence  of  any  declarations  in  the 
Bible  as  to  who  wrote  certain  parts  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  the  question  of  their 
authorship  would  be  wholly  unimportant,  it  being  admitted  that  they  are  a 
part  of  the  AVord  of  God,  but  that  Word  speaks  directly  and  positively  on  the 
authorship,  and  it  is  these  statements  that  Dr.  Briggs  challenges.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  defence  admits  the  prophecy  to  be  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  while  he  denies  the  Isaiah  authorship.  If,  therefore,  the 
prophecy  is  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  inspired  by  him,  and  if  another  part 
of  the  same  Word,  inspired  by  the  same  God,  declares  that  these  prophecies 
were  written  by  Isaiah,  and  Dr.  Briggs  demonstrates  that  this  is  untrue,  he 
destroys  the  Word  of  God,  and  renders  it  unworthy  of  belief. 

In  our  opinion,  as  a  member  of  the  court  which  decided  the  cases,  and  as  one 
who  read  Dr.  Briggs'  defence  before  the  New  York  Presbytery,  before  rendering 
the  decision,  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  believe  in  the  omniscience  and  veracity 
of  God,  and  believe  that  the  passages  cited  in  the  specifications  are  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time  maintain  that  Isaiali  never  wrote  or  spake 
the  words  which  are  therein  declared  to  have  been  written  or  spoken  by  him. 

As  the  writer  said  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly,  when  these 
charges  were  under  consideration  on  their  merits,  "The  question  is,  which  will 


17 


we  believe,  God  or  Dr.  Briggs  ?  And  now  we  ask,  who  knows  best  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  If  it  be  conceded  that  the  omniscient  God 
knows  best,  this  question  is  settled  in  favor  of  the  authorship  of  Isaiah,  for  it 
is  so  declared  by  him  in  his  inspired  Word.  Either  the  Bible  is  God's  Word  or 
it  is  not.  Who  the  penmen  were  may  be  of  little  moment.  They  were  but 
the  instruments  for  conveying  to  the  race  the  message  of  the  Eternal  God. 
To  cast  doubt  on  his  omniscience,  to  question  his  veracity,  is  to  destroy  faith 
in  that  book  on  which  rests  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  race,  and  this  doubt  is 
cast  by  those  who  say  that  the  statements  of  God  in  his  Word  that  Isaiah  is 
the  author  of  the  passages  cited  in  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  Acts,  and  Romans, 
as  aforesaid,  are  untrue. 


18 


The  Final  Judgment;  and  the  Action  of  the 
Assembly  in  the  Case. 

The  following  are  quotations  from  your  book  : 

"Had  the  Assembly  of  1893  observed  distii>ctions  of  terms,  and  made  'a 
careful  analysis  of  the  real  meaning  of  Dr.  Briggs  under  each  charge '  as  the 
Assembly  of  1836  did  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,   the  verdict  of  acquittal  by 
the  New    York  Presbytery   would  have   been  sustained  by  the  Washington  . 
Assembly."     (P.  187.) 

"The  sooner  the  world  is  assured  that  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  either  hold  or 
teach  a  single  one  of  the  heretical  doctrines  for  the  alleged  holding  of  which 
he  has  been  condemned  and  suspended  from  the  gospel  ministry,  the  better  for 
the  Church  and  for  the  world  at  large."     (P.  188.) 

"  My  deep  conviction  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  not  been  justly  convicted  of 
heresy,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  has  been  condemned  and  suspended  from 
the  ministry  for  deducing  sound  doctrines  from  the  Word  of  God, — doctrines 
which  are  contrary  to  nothing  contained  in  the  Westminster  standards."  (P. 
195.) 

"  Is  there  no  relief  from  such  a  position  ?  There  is.  It  will  be  competent 
for  another  General  As.sembly,  after  due  investigation,  to  say  that  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  were  such  as  prevented  the  Assem- 
bly at  Washington  from  being  in  proper  possession  of  all  the  facts  and 
arguments  presented,  and  that,  as  the  result.  Dr.  Briggs  was  condemned  for 
holding  heretical  views,  which  he  solemnly  disavows,  and  for  holding  extra- 
confessional  views,  which  were  only  supposed  to  be  heretical ;  and  that  on  a 
more  minute  and  extended  examination  of  the  evidence  and  arguments  in  the 
case  tlian  it  was  possible  for  the  Assembly  at  Washington  to  make,  it  has  been 
found  that  the  accused  did  not  either  hold  or  teach  heretical  views,  and  that 
therefore  he  be  relieved  of  the  sentence  passed  upon  him."     (P.  190-191.) 


19 


Why  did  you  write  this  book  ?  What  \vg,s  to  be  gained  by  publishing  it 
other  than  a  brief  notoriety  ?  Did  you  write  it  in  the  interest  of  the  peace  and 
purity  of  the  Church?  Was  it  your  purpose  to  secure  that  obedience  to 
authority  tliat  is  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  any  Church  ?  Were  you  seek- 
ing by  this  production  to  increase  ift  our  beloved  Church  throughout  all  its  bor- 
ders, that  respect  for  the  decisions  of  its  supreme  tribunal  to  which  they  are 
entitled,  and  which  every  minister  and  elder  is  under  vow  to  accord  to  them? 
Can  you  name  anywhere  a  more  uncalled  for  attack  than  you  have  thus  made 
against  lawful  authority,  or  a  more  insidious  attempt  to  undermine  the  courts 
of  our  Church  and  to  disturb  its  peace? 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  Supreme  Court 
of  one  of  the  greatest  denominations  in  Christendom.  It  was  the  Court  that 
tried  Dr.  Briggs,  and  was  composed  of  over  five  hundred  members  selected 
from  among  its  ablest  and  best  men,  a  Court  of  which  you  yourself  have  said 
"  many  of  its  members  were  men  of  learning,  and  all  of  them  were  earnest  and 
conscientious  men."  That  Court,  after  Bays  of  patient  hearing,  after  according 
Dr.  Briggs  all  the  time  he  asked  for  the  presenation  of  his  case,  after  the  fullest 
consideration,  and  after  an  agitation  extending  over  years,  found  him  guilty 
and  condemned  his  teaching  by  a  vote  of  383  to  116. 

You,  a  stranger,  if  not  an  intermeddler,  not  a  member  of  the  Court,  with- 
out the  obligaticms  of  a  judge  resting  upon  you,  in  this  book  that  you  call  a 
"calm  review"  deliberately  declare  the  Assembly's  decision  wrong  and  unjust, 
and  say  as  to  the  judgment  and  sentence  pronounced  by  that  Court: 

"My  deep  conviction  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  not  been  justly  convicted  of 
'heresy,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  has  been  condemned  and  suspended  from 
the  ministry  for  deducing  sound  doctrines  from  the  Word  of  God — doctrines 
which  are  contrary  to  nothing  contained  in  the  Westminster  standards." 

And  furtlier,  on  page  189,  you  say: 

"  Nor  has  the  wrong  done  been  simply  a  wrong  to  Dr.  Briggs.  He  may 
be  able  to  endure  to  be  misunderstood.  His  consciousness  of  having  to  endure 
this  may  itself  be  a  source  of  comfort  to  him.  He  may  look  unto  One  infi- 
nitely greater  than  all  earth's  divines,  who  was  charged  with  being  a  blasphe- 
mer and  condemned  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  Church  of  his  day,  and 
may  feel  that  in  having  to  bear  a  like  cross  after  him  he  is  infinitely  honored." 


20 


What  is  to  be  said  of  the  position  taken  by  you,  that  Dr.  Briggs  in  his 
trial  and  sentence  is  to  be  consoled  by  the  trial  and  sentence  of  the  Jord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  if  the  cases  were  in  any  sense  parallel  ?  In  what  respect  are  they 
parallel  ?  Who  made  you  competent  to  determine  that  the  383  members  of 
the  Assembly  who  adjudged  Dr.  Briggs  guilty,  and  sentenced  him,  rendered 
a  wrong  decision  ?  Who  made  you  a  court  of  last  resort  and  that  of  infallible 
judgment,  thus  to  reverse  the  General  Assembly  ? 

ERROR    IN   JUDGMENT    NOT    PRESUMED. 

It  is  true,  as  you  state  in  your  book,  "  that  Gelieral  Assemblies  sometimes 
err,"  and  it  is  true  that  even  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
been  known  to  reverse  its  own  decisions.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  and  the  Gener.il  Assembly  have  rendered  a 
thousand  times  more  decisions  in  which  they  have  never  reversed  themselves, 
and  in  an  overwhelming  majority  of  cases  have  rendered  just  and  righteous 
judgments.  There  is  no  presumption  that  courts  err,  the  presumption  always 
is  that  their  decisions  are  just.  Who  constituted  you  a  tribunal  to  review 
the  judgment  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Church? 
What  qualifications  have  you  for  that  position  ?  Did  it  ever  dawn  upon  you 
while  making  this  "calm  review,"  that  you  could  err,  and  that  in  promulgat- 
ing these  opinions,  in  publishing  them,  and  in  attacking  the  prosecuting  com- 
mittee and  others  you  may  have  been  guilty  of  an  error,  committed  a  stupend- 
ous blunder,  done  irreparable  evil  and  injury,  and  that  you  may  have  inflicted 
a  grevious  wrong  on  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ? 

Frankly,  is  it  possible  for  you  to  err  ? 

Is  not  this  book,  this  calm  review,  as  uncalled  for,  as  unwarranted  an 
assault  on  the  peace,  purity  and  faith  of  our  beloved  Church  as  could  be  made? 

It  is  true  that  all  men  are  free  to  express  their  opinions  touching  any  de- 
cision by  any  Supreme  Court,  but  it  is  also  true  that  those  who  are  members 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  especially  those  who  are  bound  by  its  ordina- 
tion vows,  should,  when  her  courts  have  spoken,  loyally  submit,  although  the 
decisions  may  not  meet  with  their  approval.  Decision  and  authority  must 
rest  somewhere;  there  must  be  a  court  of  last  resort,  and  the  Presbyterian 
Church  has  constituted  her  General  As-erably  her  supreme  judicatory  in  the 


21 


interpretation  of  her  doctrines  and  constitution,  and  all  loyal  Presbyterians 
accept  her  decisions  as  final. 

Notwithstanding  this,  we  find  an  unwise  and  needless  agitation  going  on  in 
our  Church,  promoted  and  maintained  by  such  publications  as  yours,  and  by 
circulars  and  otherwise,  and  which  finds  expression  in  such  resolutions  as  the 
following : 

"Resolved,  That  we  view  with  apprehension  the  attempt  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  make  new  definitions  by  dogma  and  deliverance  and  by  judicial 
decisions,  and  express  our  conviction  that  no  doctrinal  statement  which  is  not 
explicitly  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms  of  the 
Church,  is  binding  on  her  office-bearers."  Who  determines  finally  what  the 
confession  and  catechisms  mean,  if  it  is  not  the  General  Assembly? 

A    PARALLEL    CASE. 

■  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  judicial  and  final  interpreter 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  its  judgments  are  final  and  binding 
on  all  who  live  under  that  Constitution.  What  would  you  think  of  a  body  of 
lawyers  who,  having  submitted  their  causes  to  that  court  for  decision  and 
having  been  defeated  after  patient  and  full  trial,  would  meet  in  a  caucus  or 
convention  and  solemnly  resolve  "that  they  view  with  apprehension  the 
attempt  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  make  new  deffinitious 
of  law,  by  deliverance  and  by  judicial  decision,  and  expressing  their  convic- 
tion thaf  no  law  is  binding  which  is  not  explicitly  contained  in  the  statutes  of 
the  United  States  enacted  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ? 

Would  you  not  treat  such  conduct  as  childish  ?  Is  it  childish  on  the  part 
of  lawyers  and  manly  on  the  part  of  ministers? 

Had  the  General  Assembly  decided,  by  a  vote  of  388  to  116,  to  sustain 
the  appeal  of  Dr.  Briggs,  it  would  have  been  interesting  to  have  read  your 
"caZm  review"  and  the  opinions  of  those  of  your  school  who  are  seeking  a 
reversal.  Instead  of  the  resolution  being  that  you  and  your  school  view  with 
apprehension  the  attempt  of  the  General  Assembly  to  make  new  definitions  by 
dogma  and  deliverence,  we  would  have  had  a  resolution  that  you  view  with 
gratitude  the  conduct  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  by 
deliverance  and  by  "dicial  decision  confining  itselt  strictly  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  you    nterpret  i  . 


22 


Is  it  not  idle  to  be  assailing  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Conrt,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  because  they  do  not  run  our  way  and  do  not  suit  our  pre-con- 
ceived  opinions?  The  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  was  not  decided  on  any  technical 
grounds  or  misunderstanding  of  his  views,  as  you  charge.  Dr.  Briggs  assailed 
certain  parts  of  the  Word  of  God  and  declared  them  to  be  untrue.  He  assailed 
the  faith  of  our  Church  in  the  Word  of  God.  The  issue  was  not  one  of  mis- 
construction or  misurjderstanding  of  his  teachings.  His  statements  were  clear 
and  well  defined,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  matter  of  the  Isaiah  charge.  He  and 
his  school  challenge  the  omniscience  and  veracity  of  God  and  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  Bible.  They  claim  it  is  errant,  and  false  in  its  historical  statements. 
Their  assaults  upon  that  book  are  utterly  destructive,  to  the  ordinary  mind, 
of  any  faith  in  its  statements. 

Do  you  believe  that  Isaiah  said  the  words  that  in  JNIatthew,  Luke,  John, 
Acts  and  Romans  are  attributed  to  him?  If  you  do,  you  cannot  agi^e  with  Dr, 
Briggs.  If  you  do  not,  then  you  challenge  the  knowledge  and  veracity  of  the 
writers,  and  if  you  believe  these  siatements  are  a  part  of  the  Eternal  Word, 
you  challenge  the  omniscience  and  veracity  of  the  Eternal  God. 

OUR   CHURCH   AND   THE   BIBLE, 

The  position  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  this  point  is  unmistakable. 
She  declares  that  God  gave  a  revelatidU  of  His  will  to  the  race,  the  Word  of 
God,  the  Bible.  She  declares  that  the  revelation  thus  given  was  a  fixed  quan- 
tity, a  unit,  a  book,  and  is  the  product  of  the  Eternal  God.  When  given  by 
hira  to  the  race,  it  was  absolutely  inerraut.  The  copies  which  we  now  possess 
and  use,  if  they  do  contain  mistakes  or  iliscrepaucies,  contain  only  such  mis- 
takes and  discrepancies  as  must  have  arisen  from  translation  or  copying  which  are 
not,  and  cannot  be,  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God.  Just  as  the  mistaken  and  dis- 
crepancies which  may  exist  in  the  copy  of  the  statutes  of  any  State  are  not  a 
part  of  the  statute  themselves,  nor  are  the  legislators  the  authors  thereof.  It 
is  not  these  mistakes  and  discrepancies  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  school  assail,  it  is 
the  statements  historical  and  otherwise  of  the  original,  or  what  is  conc^eded  muet 
have  been  a  part  of  the  original. 

Those  of  us  who  lay  uo  claim  to  scholarship,  are  amazed  at  the  audacity 
and  lack  of  originality  in  the  present  attacks  u[)()ii  the  Word  of  God  by  reason 


23 


of  alleged  errors.  Nearly  all  of  these  alleged  errors  have  been  shown  to  be  the 
stock  in  trade  of  Paine  and  Voltaire,  and  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  school  are  simply- 
peddling  the  stale  rationalistic  chestnuts  of  Paine  and  Voltaire.  They  do  not 
say  thiit  any  seeming  mistakes  are  the  work  of  human  hands,  and  are  therefore 
not  a  part  of  God's  Word.  They  say  that  the  claim  that  they  did  not  exist  in 
the  original  Word  that  caine  from  God  cannot  be  maintained. 

Let  them  say  that  if  any  errors  or  discrepancies  exist  in  the  present  copies 
of  the  Bible  they  are  not  a  part  of  the  Word,  as  that  Word  was  given  by  God, 
and  that  if  there  are  any  mistakes  or  discrepancies  they  aa-e,  and  must  be,  the 
work  of  human  hands,  and  they  will  then  be  in  harmony  with  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  Bear  in  mind  that  we  do  not  concede  that  it  has  been  satisfactorily 
proven  that  there  are  errors,  mistakes  or  discrepancies  in  the  Bible,  as  we  now 
have  it.  for  none  of  the  so-called  mistakes  have  been  demonstrated  to  be 
such.  Essential  to  the  faith  of  the  race  in  the  Word  of  God  is  the  belief 
that  the  revelation  which  the  Eternal  God  gave  to  the  race  is  as  inerrant 
and  free  from  mistake  as  its  divine  author,  and  that  when  our  copies  are  freed 
from  all  of  errant  man's  alleged  mistakes  and  discrepancies  in  copying,  trans- 
lating and  transmitting,  if  there  be  such,  we  have  now  the  inerrant  Word  of 
our  inenftant  God. 

YOUR   CONDUCr. 

In  what  you  claim  ns  zeal  for  the  truth,  and  your  desire  to  promote 
the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church  and  in  your  cabn  and  impartial  review, 
let  me  ask  you  why  you  spake  of  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  as  follows: 

"Judging  as  a  disinterested  observer,  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  never 
properly  apprehended  Dr.  Briggs'  position.  They  never  succeeded  in  looking 
at  the  matters  in  dispute  from  his  point  of  view."     P.  31. 

"Those  who  spoke  as  representing  the  views  of  the  minority,  appeared  to 
see  the  case  from  the  same  point  of  view  with  my.self,  and  to  reason  correctly, 
while  the  representatives  of  the  majority  seemed  to  view  it  from  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent standpoint,  and  to  reason  accordingly."     P.  38. 

"The  prosecuting  committee  utterly  failed  to  meet  Dr.  Briggs  here.  They 
said  several  things  as  if  in  reply,  hut  their  statements  are  so  indefinite  and 
conflicting,  etc."     P.  49. 


24 


"The  unsoundness  of  the  position  taken  by  the  prosecution  is  made  still 
more  apparent  by  the  violence  they  do  to  Scripture  in  their  attempt  to  maintain 
their  position."     P.  64. 

"If  this  be  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  position  the  prose- 
cution once  and  again  almost  tauntingly  attributed  to  Dr.  Briggs,  turn  to  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Book  of  Kings,  and  read  at  the  eighteenth 
verse."     P.  91. 

*'  We  may  be  thankful  that  the  above  statement  by  the  prosecution  is  a 
mis-statement."     P.  99. 

"The  prosecution  contend  that  if  the  Bible  contains  within  its  pages  any 
of  the  false  words  of  men  "it  lacks  the  one  essential  of  infallibility,  absolute 
truthfulness  of  all  its  contents."  One  cannot  but  be  amazed  that  intelligent 
men  should  reason  in  such  a  way."     P.  101. 

"But  it  is  unnecessary  to  gu  on  exposing  the  fallacies  of  the  argument  of 
the  prosecution  by  which  they  support  equally  fallacious  charges."     P.  102. 

"  The  prosecution  seem  to  have  a  sacred  dread  of  the  thought  of  using 
their  reason  in  matters  of  religion.  In  all  soberness,  I  believe  that  this  ac- 
counts for  the  singularly  unreasonable  pasitions  they  have  taken  up  in  con- 
nection w  th  this  whole  case."     P.  105. 

It  must  occur  to  the  ordinary  mind  that  there  is  an  assumption  of  superior 
knowledge  and  ability,  and  unconscious  self-righteousness  on  your  part, 
in  making  these  attacks  on  the  Assembly  and  the  prosecuting  committee. 
If  you  were  so  an.vious  to  serve  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  why  did  you  indulge  in  such  uncalled-for,  unjust  and  unwarranted 
reflections  on  those  who  had  no  other  interest  in  the  case  than  fidelity  to  truth 
and  their  ordination  vows  as  they  understood  them  ? 

HYPER-CONSERVATIVES.       BRO.^B    LIBERALS. 

In  an  age  when  those  who  voted  against  Dr.  Briggs  are  sneeringly  called 
hyper-conservatives,  and  those  who  voted  for  him  are  proudly  called  broad  libe- 
rals, permit  me  to  say  that  calling  such  names  and  indulging  in  such  talk  is  the 
chatter  of  children.  Those  who  are  called  hyper  conservatives  have  as  much 
right  to  the  term  "broad  liberals"  as  those  who  arrogate  to  themselves  the 


25 


exclusive  possession  of  that  title.  We  yield  to  no  man  in  our  desire  for  true  free- 
dom. No  class  of  men  have  made  greater  sacrifices  for  freedom,  and  for  the 
Church  and  her  faith  thau  the  men  now  sneeringly  called  hyper-conservatives. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  names  or  of  sentiment ;  it  is  a  question  of  what  is  right 
and  what  is  wrong;  what  is  fundamental  to  the  faith  of  our  Church,  and  what 
is  essential  to  faith  in  God's  truth, 


OUR   CETURCH   STANDS   FOR   FAITH    AND    OBEDIENCE. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  has  always  stood  for  faith,  for  loyalty  to  her 
standards,  for  obedience  to  authority,  and  for  that  true  freedom  whose  highest 
expression  is  implicit  obedience  to  law.  The  trial  and  sentence  of  Dr.  Briggs 
were  in  entire  harmony  with  the  historic  faith  and  conduct  of  our  great  denom- 
iniation.  Her  people  felt  that  her  faith  was  vitally  assailed  by  one  who  bore 
her  name  and  had  obtained  entrance  into  her  ministry  under  a  solemn  vow 
made  in  the  sight  of  God  to  maintain  that  faith. 

Without  respect  of  persons,  unawed  by  wealth  or  social  position  or  the 
fictitious  notoriety  of  scholarship,  the  General  Assembly  tried  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  rendered  a  just  and  righteous  judgment.  She 
deprived  him  of  no  right,  but  with  a  patience  born  of  God,  she  accorded  to 
him  every  right,  and  granted  him  a  fuller  hearing  than  would  have  been 
granted  in  any  civil  court  in  the  land.  Without  heat  or  passion,  and  impelled 
solely  by  her  sense  of  duty,  our  Church  has  reached  a  decision,  which,  in  our 
opinion,  tvill  never  be  disturbed,  and  which  is  vital  to  her  existence  and  the 
preservation  of  her  faith  in  God  and  His  Word. 

THE    AFTERMATH. 

Have  you  read  the  articles  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  have  appeared  in  the 
North  jLmerican  Review  and  in  Uie  Forum  since  the  trial  of  his  case,  and  his 
utterances  at  the  so  called  Parliament  of  Religions  ?  If  so,  do  you  not  find  in 
these  utterances  the  logical  result  of  the  teachings  that  were  condemned  by  the 
General  Assembly  at  Washington,  and  are  you  not  now  sorry  you  have  pub- 
lished your  book  ?  One  of  the  papers  of  our  Church  that  cannot  be  accused 
of  hyper-conservatism,  has  declared  ' '  these  utterances  to  be  those  of  an  un- 


26 


balanced  mind."  Is  our  beloved  Church  to  continue  to  suffer  and  be  kept  on 
the  waters  of  agitation  and  turmoil  for  such  a  man  and  such  a  cause? 

Why  should  there  be  such  persistent  efforts  made,  by  the  misuse  of 
platitudes,  and  in  the  name  of  liberty  and  constitutional  rights,  for  a  reversal 
of  the  decision  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  Briggs  case,  by  those  whose 
entire  time  and  service  should  be  consecrated  to  the  maintenance  of  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  and  the  promotion  of  its  peace  and  purity  by  obedience  to  the  de- 
cisions of  its  lawfully  constituted  courts?  What  would  be  gained  by  a  reversal 
of  the  judgment  in  the  Briggs  case?  Would  agitation  cease  on  the  happening 
of  such  an  event?  Would  not  those  whose  judgment  had  thus  been  set  aside 
have  the  same  right  to  agitate  for  a  reversal  of  the  reversal  as  the  small  minority 
which  is  now  so  persistently  seeking  to  set  aside  a  decision,  which  is  the  delib- 
erate conviction,  after  a  full  hearing,  and  years  of  consideration,  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  Church  ?  Is  there  no  court  of  last  resort ;  are  there  no  final 
decisions  in  judicial  cases  in  our  beloved  Church  ? 

Why  should  the  time  and  talents  of  some  of  our  ministers  and  professors 
be  so  largely  devoted  to  this  needless,  fruitless  agitation,  and  to  examining  the 
Word  of  God  with  a  powerful  rationalistic  microscope,  apparently  eager  to 
find,  in  the  name  of  modern  scholarship,  specks  cast  by  human  hands  upon  the 
pure  diamond  of  the  Word  of  God  ?  Having  discovered  such  specks  on  the 
surface  of  the  diamond,  why  should  they  be  so  jubilant  in  declaring  that  these 
specks  are  a  part  of  the  diamond  itself,  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  there- 
fore the  work  of  God  ? 

That  Word  of  God  has  been  attacked  in  like  manner  in  the  name  of 
scholarship  in  all  ages  since  God  gave  it  as  His  written  word  to  the  race  for 
the  salvation  of  their  souls. 

Let  me  close  with  the  words  of  the  Rev.  Archibald  G.  Brown,  of  London, 
written  January,  1894,  from  the  Hotel  des  Anglais,  Mentoue  : 

"The  Word  of  God  is  being  assailed  from  every  quarter,  and  the  holy 
writings  that  Jesus  loved  and  believed  are  being  degraded  to  a  mere 
human  literature.  We  want  no  one  to  help  us  under  any  false  impression, 
and  therefore  think  it  only  honest  to  avow  that  to  us  the  Bible  is  the 
Word  of  God  from  Beginning  to  End.  Jesus  Christ  is  to  us  the 
highest  of  all  critics.  He  has  stamped  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  true, 
and  declared  them   to  be  all  they  claim  to  be.     If  he  was  mistaken,  as  some 


27 


tell  us,  we  .elect  to  be  mistaken  with  Him.  The  very  supposition  is  blas- 
phemous. Within  sight  of  where  we  sit  is  the  window  of  the  room  in  which 
dear  Spurgeon  breathed  his  last.  He  has  gone,  but  his  witness  against  the 
"down  grade"  still  lives.  In  all  parts  of  the  world  there  are  faithful  souls 
that  sigh  and  cry  as  he  did,  because  of  the  apostacy  of  the  age.  Pray  God 
that  they  may  be  multiplied,  and  that  England  may  once  again  honor  the 
Bible,  that  has  been  the  secret  of  her  prosperity  in  the  years  that  are  past. 
We  have  tluis  frankly  let  you  know  just  where  we  stand,  and  what  we  seek  to 
preach  and  teach  by  our  own  voice,  and  the  voices  of  the  missionaries.  They 
go  from  house  to  house  with  what  we  believe  to  be  the  infallible  Word  of  God 
in  their  hands.  If  this  witness  and  testimony  be  yours  also,  we  make  bold  to 
ask  your  help." 

Yours   respectfully, 

THOS.  McDOUGALL. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  March  13,  1894. 


mm 


